Skip to main content

How Bangladesh Is Moving Forward

By

One benefit of nuclear energy that does not get much play is the way its deployment can lead to rapid industrialization in developing nations – maybe a better way to put this is, it can help bring about an industrial revolution. Even better, for those parts of the world that take advantage of this, it allows for rapid industrialization without adding to carbon emission issues.

Consider this BBC profile of Bangladesh:

Poverty is deep and widespread; almost half of the population live on less than one dollar a day. However, Bangladesh has reduced population growth and improved health and education.

Because you’ve got to start with your people. Then, you’ve got to find ways for them to maximize their gains.

The country is trying to diversify its economy, with industrial development a priority. Overseas investors have pumped money into manufacturing and the energy sector. 

Although Bangladesh has major social issues that make it exceptionally fragile, it’s how it’s moving forward that’s interesting.

Bangladesh has begun building the first of two new nuclear power plants north of the capital, Dhaka.

The plants - each with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts - are being constructed with Russian help as Bangladesh looks to close a yawning power deficit.

I believe the facility will be called Rippur.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the country now gets 95 percent of its electricity (about 5.8 million kilowatts in 2009) from fossil fuels. The nuclear reactors will reduce this percentage immediately, even if they do not replace any other kind of facility. (I ran into stories talking about renewable energy in Bangladesh, but aside from hydro, this is all nascent.)

But the facility might replace a few older plants:

Bangladesh currently relies on dilapidated gas-fired plants for its power supplies and experiences daily electricity shortfalls.

Erratic electricity supplies have been blamed for hampering industrial production and economic growth.

I can’t help but think that a nuclear facility would be safer, too. “Dilapidated” is not the word you want applied to your power station.

Labels:

Comments

Bill said…
"I believe the facility will be called Rippur."

'Ruppur' and 'Rooppur' are the Latin-alphabet versions I've seen.
October 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more